J. Swift wrote:
If one is going to be an effective critic of Scientology, they have to learn the language of Scientology. They don't have to use it out in everyday life, but they need the precision of Scienospeak to reach those in the cult. If one is not willing to learn some basic Scientology terms then I have to conclude that they are really not that interested in the subject.
Look, the internet, pop culture, and science all spawn a proliferation of jargon. A modern person has to be adept at the acquisition of linguistic jargon in order to be an intellectually proficient in our globalist pop technoculture, you dig?
There are plenty of other posts and articles here at OCMB that use everyday language to explain Scientology. You have do some work to understand Scientology. Everyone at OCMB understands the problem of language. You can use google to find Scientology terms and look up phrases or policies. It is all very easy to find.
My post which opened this thread was, as I said, a way to reflect back to Scientology how they are perceived by outsiders. For example, what if this were published as a US Law:
ENEMY Scientologist Order. Fair game. Any Scientologist may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any US Citizen without any discipline of the US Citizen. Scientologists may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
That would have a chilling effect on Scientologists because it means that they would be subject to ruination without penalty. In his Fair Game policy, LRH said it was permissible for Scientologists to ruin and even murder those people Scientology deemed to be its enemies, or what it calls SP's (Suppressive Persons):
ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by
any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the
Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (c) 1967 Founder
When we mirror back to Scientology Hubbard's own violent language, Scientologists can see just how murderous and genocidal in intent Scientology looks to outsiders. Much of Hubbard's writings are simply a call for hate crimes and even murder formalized as Church doctrine.
Thus, the use of linguistic mirroring in their own language might help some Scientologists reading this to realize the brutal nature of that with which they are involved.
I was not advocating the use of Scientology jargon in everyday life. I was using Scientology's own language in a structuralist sort of post to make a point to lurking Scientologists.
I agree with much of this.. and I thank you for the tips. I did some more surfing and did find a lexicon of sorts at the main site.
The only area where I would disagree is in the following.... Reading Tory's story is fascinating.. because she describes in no uncertain terms what it was that brought her out of the darkness.
She had this image that Andreas was like the anti-christ... evil incarnate... right?
And Andreas demonstrated that he was not out to denigrate her, or shame her, or harm her. That he cared about her... and had respect for her as a human being, an individual.. a person with a mind that was capable of functioning.
It was in the simple gesture of kindness, that (from what I have read of Tory's story) that the switch in thinking began.
Maybe that won't work for all. But I think somebody like Tory is a remarkable asset to the critic community because she can offer a blue-print as to what really "works" in jarring people gently out of the lies and deciet that they have been sold by the cult.
From what I can gather... and what I see, most of Scientologists really have bought into the idea, hook-line and sinker, that they are on a mission to save the world.... and as such, their mind casts them in the role of the good-guys, battling evil foes.
Mirroring only works, if somebody looking into a mirror recognizes the image they see reflected back at them, as themselves.... Otherwise, what they see when they look into the mirror is a projection of every terrible boogeyman that the cult has conjured up about "religious bigots" and so forth.
That's just my own take on it. I still don't know where the line is.. (as I discussed on previous thread) between compassion for the individuals conned by the cult, and contempt for the cult itself.
Like I said.. I'm new, and just getting my feet wet.
A long time ago, when I was involved in AA, somebody pointed out to me that the biggest failing in human relationships is that we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions, while the world can only properly judge us by our actions.
I am trying to apply that here, as I delve more deeply into the action.
One last thing...
"Look, the internet, pop culture, and science all spawn a proliferation of jargon"
Agreed... and not to drag another esoteric thinker into the discussion...
"When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty" - Confucius
There is something really disturbing to me about the way that Scientology invents it's own language... and foists it upon it's members, and indeed does all it can to imbue it's own meaning into language... In a way, it allows the lies peddled to remain unchallenged... because it invents tautologies that can give people the impression that somebody has said something terribly profound.. when it's actually terribly self-contradictory.
I mean... honestly... I've read some of Hubbard's words, and listened to some of the audio files of him.... and how he strings together complete abject bloody nonsense.... and yet... to the members, this horse-puckey is treated as if it is devine wisdom.
I'd love to ask some of the Scientologists sometime, about whether they read something by Hubbard, or listened to something he said, and had absolutley no freaking idea what he meant by it... and how they dealt with that...
In any case J.Switf (one of my favourite writers BTW!)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.